Differentiating between multiple layers of information is a part of every analysts work, but "working" the information is a whole-nother issue, and that is where Julian Assange has got himself caught. This WikiLeaks site is a site for any and every source to be heard and there is no shame in doing so anonymously. The biggest problem seen by the United States Government is the discrepancy between what is and isn't being posted. No single entity is perfect or in complete control, but the United States believes that Assange is out to exploit this in the worst way possible. That being said, it is difficult any given party to go untouched in a controversial situation. I believe that the American military brass should be held accountable for their actions and that Julian Assange's prosecution is a smoke screen for the faults of American Government.
The whole idea behind WikiLeaks is to "Keep Governments Open", and in doing so there are going to be some toes that will get stepped on. These toes just so happen to be the leaders of the world, who coincidentally don't appreciate the act. Just because someone doesn't like something, does that mean it shouldn't be said? I think not. I think that every voice has the right to be heard but in a professional way. Take this instance where a journalist is publishing facts about certain people and their organizations. Yes this is going to embarrass and upset certain individuals, but is that what we should be worried about? At no point has WikiLeaks information been proven to be corrupt, so why get distracted with the illusion of a cyber terrorist? Assange has been nothing but a channel for information.
Every decision has consequences, which derive from a source and that source is not Julian Assange. He may be responsible for the information getting out but by no means the actions providing it. Some may argue that he tampers with the information giving it his own spin, but if this were true than why would it be such an issue shutting him down? The truth behind the matter is that Assange has created, in the Governments eyes, a weapon that is nothing but destructive. What really is going on is that the United States can't even keep its own secret information secret, which is embarrassing and hard to watch. So what they have done is create accounts in attempt to discredit Julian Assange by putting unknowingly false accusations of sexual assault on his name.
Assange believes that information is safety, thus he is providing safety for the worlds population by opening up the governments secret archives to the general public. He has had his information and accusations just as public as the issues brought against himself. In my eyes there is no fault to exposing something for what it is. The fault comes with exaggeration and misdirection, which is not the case on either side. I firmly believe that the people deserve to know what is "really" happening within their government and around the world and if they aren't willing to do so then they should take a second look at what they are doing. Granted, yes their should be a filter but that filter shouldn't stop the flow of information but merely organize it into something understandable.
Whole-nother? Too informal.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "working" the information?
This intro paragraph is all over the map. It's hard to go from one sentence to another smoothly. GIve me some pronouns and repeated terms and transitions to ease my passage through your sea of words. It's too choppy.
Last line of thesis is very good.
You have a strong voice, with a colloquial tone.
By corrupt, you mean incorrect? Because many people would argue that he and the organization are corrupt in the sense of bad intentions or ramifications.
"Every Decision has consequences" paragraph: I expect because of the topic sentence that you'll spend the whole paragraph arguing why he is only the conduit and not responsible, but then you flit onto the US Govt accusation that he's nothing but evil, and on to their inability to keep info secret, and then imply they're responsible for the rape insinuations.
EASY, slow down there tiger. This is a klaiedoscopic paragraph where you're trying to fit everything inside except the color black. Slow down.
Take one topic per paragraph. REALLY argue and prove that point, in a paragraph or two or three or four. Then move on to the next topic. Don't whirlwind through so many ideas at once. You won't end up developing them properly, you won't prove them and you'll lose your reader.
600 words does not cut it my friend.