Video of President John F. Kennedy speaking on the Issue of ‘Secrecy’
Wikileaks, a web based international watchdog group is preparing to release more than 15,000 classified military documents related to the war in Afghanistan. This, following more than 70,000 reports released last month. Wikileaks has claimed that it delayed the release of the latest reports, as part of a “harm-minimization process,” in an effort to redact any information that they felt was objectionable. The Pentagon has requested the reports be returned and further stated that, “We’re not getting involved in harm-minimization conversations, we’re asking them to return stolen property.” Wikileaks responded to the Pentagon’s statement with a statement of their own: “Obnoxious Pentagon spokesperson issues formal threat against wikileaks: Destroy everything or else.”
“There is a Higher law than any government’s law. The People are required to obey their government’s law only when it’s in agreement with Higher law. If the government violates Higher law, we are bound to throw off our allegiance and to resist.”
Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, 30 January, 1750
John Adams, the second President of the United States, referred to the above statement by Reverend Mayhew as, “crucially important in leading to revolution.” Adams also said, “But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the war was commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.”
The “Higher law” that Mayhew referred to was simply a Common Law, which most colonists understood and faithfully obeyed. The two basic principals of Common Law: 1) do all that you have agreed to do 2) do not encroach on other persons or their property. All major religions and philosophies agree on these two points, although perhaps expressing them uniquely, and the American colonists were absolutely dedicated to the principal of Common Law. The revolution began after colonists felt that unfair taxation was an encroachment by the British government, and therefore a breach of Common Law, leading to the eventual overthrow of the government by the colonists. The colonists were also guilty of treason and this treason was felt to be, “moral, ethical and right in every way.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “This eternal and immutable law said the politicians and bureaucrats were as human as anyone else and they had no special rights or privileges; they could not encroach on others. “All men are created equal.”
Today we find the social and political machine is a much more complicated and diverse challenge. Our, “Common Law” is not as easily defined or agreed upon. Those who we entrust with making law and those entrusted with defining laws made by others, often bend and distort the two simple principals of Common Law, until we as a society can no longer recognize the original premise.
On December 4th, 1859, Abraham Lincoln commented on the resistance and ultimate death of American abolitionist John Brown. Lincoln described Brown as having, “great courage and rare unselfishness.” Lincoln also said of the anti-slavery activist, “Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if constitutionally we elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.”
John Brown is known for advocating and practicing armed insurrection to abolish slavery. Brown’s actions at the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 and the 1859 failed raid on Harper’s Ferry, an action that began the Civil War. For his acts of, “patriotic treason,” Brown would be labeled, “one of the most controversial of all 19th century Americans.”
American isolationism begins to fade and this social and economic change heralds, in a time of increased complexity on the issues of right and wrong, patriotism and treason. No longer do Americans solely fight their own fights, but now must become involved in the fairness and protection of encroachment on a world stage. Now the issue of when treason is justified becomes as complex as the quantum mechanics example of Schrödinger’s Cat, where the very attempt to observe democracy somehow alters the path traveled by democracy.
We now fight battles against enemies who do not revere Common Law and cannot seem to find tolerance for others who may believe differently. We seem to have arrived at an intersection where those who have the opportunity to oppress or force self-interest agendas, will.
The Issue of Censorship:
Currently there are ten countries that have complete control of information diffusion. North Korean certainly leads the world in having total control of what their citizens not only receive, but more harmful to progress, what they believe.
Other authoritarian ruled countries are Libya, Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Syria and Belarus. The citizens of these countries are typically not only living in social and emotional poverty, but also economic poverty. It is true that no patriots will spring from these countries, even if there are patriotic acts performed. Certainly the oppression imposed by these dictators will limit the growth and future of the very citizens that the regime selfishly espouses to serve.
President John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market, is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
Does this concept apply to classified Military actions in foreign countries, even under the guise of exposing an “unjust war?” The Wikileaks public presentation of classified military documents describing the successes and failures of an ongoing conflict does not appear to follow the causality of treason dictum applied by our forefathers. Perhaps the views of Wikileaks spokesman, Julian Assage, are simply relative to where his views were viewed? America could be seen as encroaching in Afghanistan. The reasons we are in Afghanistan are certainly complicated and would be self-evident to most Americans, but on a world-view, perhaps others would consider us breaching another’s Common Law. The question then is, can Wikileaks actions be considered patriotic simply because they risk retribution for an act of protest in response to an event that they view as flawed? There does not exist a collective majority view that the war in Afghanistan is flawed or unjust, so who then can decide autonomously to take such drastic actions and release classified material? Wikileaks actions have undoubtedly endangered the lives of civilians. John Brown’s actions sparked the Civil War, a costly war for soldiers and citizens alike.
Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell called wikileaks actions, “the height of irresponsibility.” Wikileaks responds saying they are, “trying to expose serious violations of human rights and civil liberties, which the Bush administration committed in its war against terror.”
Jean-Francois Julliard, Secretary General of Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media watchdog group, called Wikileaks action “reckless” and “incredibly irresponsible.” Julliard went on to say of the Wikileaks release, “but revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous.”
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff said, “Assage can say whatever he likes about the greater good that he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” The question remains that if there have been unjustified civilian deaths in the act of military actions, whose hands were bloodied first? It would seem that the word unjustified depends on the viewer’s opinion of military correctness. Civil War photographer Mathew Brady captured the first pictures of the wartime carnage seen by the American public. Does simply seeing the resultant death of warfare give us a plateau on which to individually judge the worth of that action?
Oddly enough, the Taliban who is historically defined by their disregard for Afghan civilian’s safety or life in general, recently changed their code of conduct, following the Wikileaks information. AP reported, “An updated Taliban code of conduct urges fighters to avoid killing civilians and forbids them from seizing weapons and money, a directive aimed at winning hearts and minds of Afghans, also being courted by international forces. But the document declares that people working for international forces or the Afghan government are “supporters of the infidels” and can be killed. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar took a similar hard line in orders to insurgents that NATO forces said they intercepted in early June.”
Just weeks ago a Taliban suicide bomber attempting to kill an Afghan official, detonated his explosives and unfortunately killed six Afghan children instead. So much for the “new code of conduct.”
“I am not so much concerned with the right of everyone to say anything he pleases as I am about our need as self-governing people to hear everything relevant.”
– John F. Kennedy
