Although free speech is a Constitutional right, it does have
limits—especially when it concerns national security. The actions of Julian
Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden, for this reason, are treasonous.
Despite my hope for a truly transparent government, I think that these people
very obviously violated the trust our government invested in them.
First of all, the point that the information was sensitive
enough to cause major consequences for the US is one that I will not argue. The
information has obviously not been of great importance, or we would have
already been threatened. I also say this because even Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates describes it as having only “modest” consequenses, says Gabriel
Schoenfeld’s opinion article in the Wall Street Journal. For these reasons, I
concede that it was not as dangerous an act as some make it out to be.
However, the actions of these people are still treasonous
and deserving of some degree of punishment. Though they may have released
information as a movement for free speech, it was not the right thing to do.
There are other ways to hold our government accountable. These men and women
could have sought a way to make our government more transparent on more
diplomatic terms.
A relatively recent representation of such wrongful action
took place at the Wisconsin Capitol this past June when protesters refused to
obtain necessary permits to gather in large groups. It is the perfect example
of something that has (possibly) positive implications, but is wrongfully
executed. (See related article here)
The final piece to this puzzle is that it can be easily
argued that Assange, Manning and Snowden acted out of “bad faith.” As much as
they were trying to “do good” for society, they were deliberately hurting our
government’s integrity. Schoenfeld’s article touches on the comparison of
Assange’s WikiLeaks and controversial newspapers, saying that prosecutors have
not touched newspapers because they don’t edge this border of “bad faith.”
For these reasons, Assange, Manning and Snowden are not
martyrs, nor are they deserving of fame; they are simply individuals who
deliberately breached the faith of our government. Their causes may be noble,
but their actions very obviously not.
I also thought it was interesting about how they couldn't seem to prove that Assange's actions were out of "bad faith". I understand that he may argue about his right to free speech and press, but I think his actions went to far.
ReplyDeleteWhat punishment do you think that the people involved in this deserve? I agree with you that they deserve some type of punishment, but when it comes to actually deciding what the deserve, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that you think Assange's actions are treasonous, so do you think he should go to jail for life?
I agree that their actions could have been dangerous, and that perhaps they went about a noble cause in with "bad faith". But didn't the government break their trust with these people (and us, their fellow Americans) by carrying out secret military strikes? Trust is a two way street- if the government wants to trust people, people have to be able to trust the government too.
ReplyDeleteI like your points, and especially how you brought in an event that was both local and recent (the protests at the Wisconsin Capitol this past summer). I also like how you stated "despite my hope for a truly transparent government", because you recognize that transparency would be a good thing even if it's not completely possible. Overall I thought your response was specific and well thought out, and a good reaction to this topic.
ReplyDeleteHanna! This was a great way to express your feelings towards this article. I also agree with your last statement, "Their causes may be noble, but their actions very obviously not." I stated something along these lines in my response, but yours was perfectly stated! Way to go!
ReplyDelete