Divide and conquer. Control by chaos through expert manipulation of the human emotion. This is exactly what WikiLeaks wants to do. Hiding behind the façade of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and the growing demand for Government Transparency, people of all walks of life are allowing themselves to be captivated and controlled by the perceptions of a misguided ideologist. There is in existence a legally protected concept called “The Right to Presumptive Privacy” which has been either never acknowledged by some or never even heard of by others.
Regardless of those involved or the subject matter of any discussion, when practiced in an environment where precautions have been taken; whether they are intentionally accomplished behind closed doors or during a conversation where it is “understood” that the information being presented is for that person or persons; the Right to Presumptive Privacy clearly exists. This in no way, shape or form violates any portion or concept of the “Freedom of the Press.” While WikiLeaks and those linked with it are not American Citizens and cannot be brought to a trial accounting, the actions associated with their activities are the foundations for the laws governing Treason and Espionage in this country as well as many others.
What does all of that mean in laymen’s terms? Simple. We all have people in our lives that we lump into a group called “friends” and then subsequently divide into levels based on the different relationships with each of them. These relationships are based on how much we have in common with each one of them individually. That does not mean that any one of those friendships mean less to us than another one because there are parts of that friendship that we may feel are worth ‘dealing with’ those other parts of that individual that we value for personal reasons.
Now, take for example there are a number of your shall we say ‘closer’ friends who perhaps feel exactly the same way you do about a certain individual that you are all mutual ‘friends’ with. If you are sitting in that metaphorical circle, sharing your feelings with each other in a sort of ‘venting’ mode; there exists the “Right to Presumptive Privacy” because you are speaking your feelings amongst a group of people who have professed at some point in time to share those same feelings. There exists the “Common Knowledge” that you are amongst “people of like mind” therefore it is “understood” that the information is being shared because of an unspoken “Comfort Level” or “Atmosphere” created by the established relationship between all persons in the conversation.
Now, place yourself in that situation. You know that you actually value a particular persons friendship, yet you are aggravated by something that this person has said or done. You have relied upon that “Unspoken Confidence” in your “Inner Circle” of friends to allow yourself to voice an opinion based on the knowledge that what is said will remain between those participants of that conversation or discussion. In settings of this type we don’t always begin our statements with “Don’t repeat this…” or “This is just between us…” or the like; it is simply understood. Yet we are comfortable in the “Knowledge” that this is simply “Understood” between everyone.
Now think about how devastated you would be if parts of that conversation came back to you from a source that was not a participant in that original conversation. Especially if what got back to you was something you said. You knew when you said it that you were just angry about something someone said or did. You also know that you were only venting your feelings, you did not stop liking that person; all the reasons you were friends with them are still there. You were not looking to end a relationship that perhaps had been in existence since early childhood. But now here you are, faced with a comment that you made, a comment that has been even further complicated by the fact that it was taken out of context and warped by repetition that it is barely even close to what you actually said.
I don’t know how to get any more elementary than that. So much of what WikiLeaks has put out there for “public knowledge” are simply intercepted and or illegally obtained bits and pieces of both unsubstantiated, invalidated and completely “out of context” statements as well as a complete violation of specific levels privacy associated with Trust.
My God, it is not just unbelievably overwhelming the number of individuals who sincerely believe that all of this is an exercise in the “Freedom of Speech” but the “Who” that this entire debacle has ensnared. This is not Freedom of Speech; this is not the Advocation of Governmental Transparency nor is this any form of Responsible Journalism.
WikiLeaks has done nothing more than provide an open portal for the abuse of Trust and the Violation of Privacy not just between individuals, but also between Nations. Alliances that have taken decades to build have been shaken to their foundations in as little as a weeks time. Years of hard work and dedication to the establishment and preservation of world peace are at stake.
Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Information Act are treasured assets and should passionately be protected. While many of us have become so disillusioned by what has been historically identified as “Main Stream” or “Traditional” media, this is not the time to allow ourselves to become “Blinded by our own Light” so to speak. We cannot lose sight of the basic principles that govern ethical societies.
While I believe Julian Assange is misguided in his ethics, I also view him as a very intelligent individual. I also believe that WikiLeaks can come to be a valid source of information with proper moderation by those who are in control. I want to believe in my heart that this man sincerely believes that what he is doing is for the mutual benefit of all peoples, but I cannot do so at this time.
This opinion is based on the fact that as a US Army Veteran and an American Citizen my first allegiance must now and forever be to the United States of America and to the people that live here. The oath I took to protect and defend did not become invalid on the day I was discharged.
