-Theodore Rosevelt
Julian Assange is man of the year (runner-up, close enough). He is a hero, he is a villain, and he is now front and center in the media spotlight. That is what every publicist dreams of. Assange is certainly worthy of a pat on the back.
However, his methods of inducing this fame are far from admirable. By ducking in and out of countries, running from the authority and exposing his so called “game changing” information and sources, Assange established himself as a publishing crusader. Many people see his methods as courageous and bold. In reality per contra, Julian Assange has endangered national and international security through his own selfish desire for publishing fame and immortality.

Granted, Assange has helped boost publishing prerogative by putting himself in immediate danger. The Wikileaks founder is constantly on the move. He has to cover up his tracks, living the life of a vigilante to avoid the suspicion and attention he has aroused from governments and corporations around the world. Several controversial Wikileaks postings on the extrajudicial killings in Kenya , the church of scientology, Guantanamo Bay procedures and the famous Bradley Manning helicopter clip (couldn't find a copy of the original video) have exposed valuable truths to the public eye. Assange has played a roll in deciding an election, starting a revolution, and exposing bank fraud. This I am all for. The line between informer and muck-raker began graying, however, when Assange decided to post classified U.S. cables for the public eye in attempt to “open the government”.
Several factors must be brought up when taking into account the legitimacy of Assange’s recent posts on the U.S. cables. Back in November of 2010, Assange began posting the cables. This radically changed my perspective on Assange and his motives. Assange is not merely interested in exposing said corruptions (that he obtained from whistleblowers with their own desires). Assange wants to change what he views as a corrupt institute. He is trying to publicize all information. He wants governments, specifically the U.S. government, to stop withholding information from the public. Now this all sounds fine and dandy. “Yeah, down with the government and their evil cheating ways! We want to know everything!” My friends, it is not that simple.
Why would a government cover its tracks? Could it be to hide a politician’s scamming or cheating ways? Possibly to cover up an illegal or seemingly scandalous deal between governments? Certainly both of these are true. Be that as it may, I believe there are also legitimate reasons as to why a government would keep its information classified. Let me paint the picture for you.
Suppose I knew what was hiding over in the pentagon right now. I am sure I would find more and more reasons to question our government. Maybe I would feel ashamed to be an American, outraged that I am being lied to, and eager to rise against power. It just so happens that everyone else now has access to this information. People are infuriated. Riots start to break out, chaos hits the streets, countries around the world watch as the most prominent and powerful country in existence crumbles internally. However bad this information is, I am sure it is worth keeping hidden for the sake of our society.
The United States Government does not have a perfect track record. Not by a long shot. Yet we are the most powerful, respected, and reputed government in the world. Our government does not exist to sneak and deal under the table. It exists to protect and serve its citizens, something that any proud American can agree on. How that happens is up to the employed members of that government. As long as my best interests are being met and the world is not dissolving into chaos, I am okay with allowing the people who run my country to do what they do best. Politicians may be sleazy, power hungry, slime balls but most know what it takes to run a country, and in our case a world. If all the classified information that the government posses were somehow flung into our grasp, the effect would be disastrous. It is not the duty of a vigilante reporter with a grudge to jeopardize U.S. security.
Despite the constant plea of “exposing the worlds truths”, Julian Assange and Wikileaks seem to have taken a particularly anti-American stance. But then again, who hasn’t? It is very hard not to make enemies while trying to make the world a better place. I feel that this is why so many whistleblowers come to Assange with classified U.S. government documents. We have many enemies, all of which will do anything they can do bring us down. But what happens when this becomes a reality?

Julian Assange is not a villian par say. Assange does not have a sinister motive to destroy all societies or take over the world. He is being admirable by withholding thousands of apparently “game-changing” cables from public eyes.
That being said, Julian Assange is a catalyst for worse things to come. Think, If Assange and his crew have so easily gained access to strictly classified information now, who knows what other, more evil, people are capable of. Say someone where to post what Assange has access to now without any discretion. The United States government could find itself in grave danger. Classified information is made classified for a reason. We have no way of knowing what types of documents are locked up in the pentagon as of now, but I am sure that is for the better.
By making a mockery of the United States technological security and its ability to control the information that is sent out into the public, Assange has demonstrated that we are not as powerful, or as safe, as we thought.
Assange also endangers his sources. For example, Bradley Manning is now being held in solitary confinement. Manning is currently threatened with the death penalty for “aiding the enemy” (video included). Other names have been posted in the Afghan war documents as well as the U.S. cables, despite Julian Assange claiming that no sources would be revealed. The United States justice department has been trying to charge Assange for endangering his sources, as well as espionage. View Assange’s response here
Some view Julian Assange as an anarchist. Others a revolutionary. Still more a muck-raker, hero, villain, vigilante, etc. Name calling aside, Julian Assange is making himself into a martyr through his civil disobedience. His eagerness to prove that freedom of the press and publishing is more important than international security directly endangers our nation as a whole. I agree with some of the message that he is trying to send. Corruption is not okay; necessary evils must be exposed. However when it comes at the cost of destroying a society based around freedom of thought and expression, there are invaluable lines that must not be crossed. Assange is trying (all too successfully) to prove that one man can stand up against the most powerful government in the world, that of the United States of America.
The popularity that the wikileaks controversy has received is scary. The world should hold its breath. There is a solid chance that a revolution is boiling in the muck-raker’s pot.
“To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action.”
–Julian Assange, State and Terrorist Conspiracies
Love the muckraker quote at the beginning. It's a perfect characterization. But in the first few paragraphs, you don't use this term to characterize him.
ReplyDeleteI am very interested to see how you define the line between informer and muckraker. I hope you take at least a paragraph or two with both. But can a "line" begin "graying"?
Good writing. Strong voice. It's very confident.
Good nuance with addressing cables, and how that was a pivotal moment.
It's a colloquial voice, but it leads me along well.
Use an extra space between paragraphs. Right now they're clumped together with not enough white space.
But you're treating revolution as universally bad. Revolution is sometimes good, despite the violence and bloodshed. See: American revolution. So it's most certainly not automatically "worth keeping hidden for the sake of our society."
Good concession about America's track record.
It's good that you're not cynical about government, but surely you need to be slightly more suspicious.
"If all the classified information that the government posses (spelling) were somehow flung into our grasp, the effect would be disastrous." This is a logical fallacy, a strawman. He's not arguing for all, just bits.
Defend why you think it's a anti-American stance. Lots of your classmates disagree. Read their pieces to figure out why people would argue the opposite, then rebut them here.
Good move: he's doesn't have bad intentions, but he will catalyze worse things to come.
Bad hyperlinking "View asssange's response "here" Try "Assange, for his part, denies that he's . . . "
You never told me where that line is between informer and muckraker. I was looking forward to that. Don't disappoint the reader: you promised something in the thesis.