A weird sort of mini-controversy seems to be brewing surrounding the founder of the website, wikileaks.com. Apparently the founder, Julian Assange, got his mitts on some sensitive material.
(Julian Assange. Julius Rosenberg. Weird, no?)
The guy who released the pentagon papers is claiming Mr. Assange is under threat of assassination. Which is an odd sort of claim, in a way. I mean: I have little doubt that the government would go cinematic-style and send a Jason Bourne after information related to nukes, agents, and military movements; as all of those would put a larger number of American lives at risk. But come on, Daniel Ellsberg! You're still alive aren't you? But then again, all of your information was only useful in retrospect. If Assange's little data bundle is current, you might have a point, at that.
This all comes on the heels of a NYTimes article describing Obama as a ruthless persecutor of government leaks.
But let's pull up our pants and cover up our whitie-tighties of naiveté:
SCENARIO: A government official leaks information to a blogger. That blogger gets read by an enemy of the U.S.A. (they all have computers, by the way). And some Americans somewhere die as a result.
What would the newspaper headlines be?
"OBAMA'S LOOSE LIPS SINK OUR SHIPS", and someone somewhere would make a racial joke out of it. Because Americans are classy.
Anyway, since this has not happened, and in fact the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have seemed rather Johny-On-The-Spot since the asshole with the S.U.V....
The opinion seems to be that the government is being TOO tight-lipped.
People. This is military shit. It will always be secret. Get used to it.
"In war, truth is the first casualty."
You all live in America. You intimately understand the behavior of your countrymen(/women) when they get in large groups. Look at the Tea Party.
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
A leader can only lead if his followers aren't flipping shit over everything. Not to mention, I would deduce from my limited understanding of grand strategy that a military cannot operate effectively under the enemy's microscope.
How many times do you think being spotted by the UAV in Modern Warfare 2 has gotten you killed?
If the military is pulling out the stops to get this stuff back, you can bet we better be hoping they get it back, and this Assange doesn't get it posted.
We don't need any more weeping mothers in America.
But will the government actually kill Assange, on the off-hand chance that all of this isn't just fluff (though, he did get that Reuters video). But so what? What did that show other then civilians getting hit by friendly fire? Do you think that only happens when you see a YouTube video of it? It happens. It sucks. But us SEEING it doesn't do jack. Our nation wasn't doing anything evil, it was just a tragic mistake that everyone regrets; the man who pulled the joystick trigger in the helicopter the most of all, I wager.
But is this information worth killing a man over? I don't know. Thankfully, that's a decision I don't have to make. Though I would figure that if you can assassinate a powerless man like Assange, you can probably kidnap him nearly as easily and slap him in Cuba illegally. (Oh wait! Assange is white, so he would get a trial instantly.)
Since this is the Amateur Statesmen, I feel a need to make a hypothetical decision as if I had the button:
If it were readily apparent that this leaked information would result in the deaths of American servicemen/women, and no method of peaceful resolution would work with Assange, and a quick re-scramble of military assets would not remove the danger...
I think... I would have to say the word that would end another man's life.
May God have mercy on my soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment