Much Ado About Transparency

I'll say this right off the bat: it's tough to deny complete transparency without looking like you're supporting the kind of people that kill reporters from helicopters, but I'm going to anyway. I believe in Wikileaks, that what it's doing is good, but I can't just say "okay, let's put every single thing the government is doing in plain view." It's just not feasible. Quite simply, the concept of complete transparency borders on irrationality because people don't want to know everything the government is doing. They want to know all the bad things the government is doing. Complete transparency simply can't work because there are bad things that work towards a greater good. But, at the same time, there are more than enough bad things that amount to a greater evil. War crimes must be dealt with harshly and severely, but I really don't think that they should be broadcast for all to see. Back in the Vietnam War era, when John and Jane Q. Public were introduced first-hand to the horrors of war for the first time through the media, North American morale took such an incredible hit that, as a society, we're still feeling the effects of it. This cannot be allowed to happen again. War is already an atrocity, and when that atrocity is willingly pushed beyond all rational limits (i.e. American soldiers killing reporters from an Apache attack chopper), these things must be dealt with so fiercely and remorselessly that everyone knows that they are not safe from repercussion no matter how many guns are on their metaphorical chopper. However, although such crimes are hideous and lamentable, they cannot be treated as just another news story, because stories like this do more harm than good, not to the government, but to the people who read them, their morale, their spirits. For most North Americans, soldiers are a symbol of strength and justice, and if stories like this are reported openly, we will demonize all soldiers based on the actions of the heartless few. Complete transparency is not the answer.

As for the hypothetical scenario of me being a journalist with a USB drive full of leaked information, it all depends on the information I'm carrying. If I'm carrying a USB filled with war crimes, I certainly won't be taking it to the press, for the reasons stated above. If I'm carrying a USB filled with information about companies causing mass contamination of forests and rivers through their dealings, that information is going to every major news outlet from here to Japan, because these are the things that the public must know, and must stop. Let the army deal with the crimes made in war, but let the people condemn the corrupt who dwell among us. Now, information like the Guantanamo Bay Manual is more tricky and less black and white than the two examples above. Housed in this facility are suspected terrorists, that if they are guilty, deserve no sympathy, but if they are innocent are being brutalized beyond belief. The most convenient thing to say is "it would be best if Guantanamo Bay didn't exist," but it does. Facilities like this are at best inhumane, and at worst inhuman. If pressured by the government to censor the information, there could be absolutely no capitulating on my part to their wishes. Leaks like this have to be known, because they represent the absolute worst of what people with too much power are capable of. Information like this must be very carefully handled, and only released to the most trustworthy of news sources, with absolute assurances that no spin will be put on the facts, but that the facts will be reported for the people to decide upon for themselves.

If I had information that the public had to know, I would take it to Openleaks, not Wikileaks, and this is for one reason. Wikileaks has a political agenda, and though I hold very strong opinions about certain things, the public must decide for themselves what is sweet and what is sour, and not have Wikileaks deciding for them. In conclusion, information should be made to the public without slant, without spin, but instead given as pure, raw information unfiltered by expression, and must be allowed to make up their own minds. The dwindling of reason is the death of the mind, and so the people must be given the chance to reason for themselves.

Lastly, I feel it necessary that even though I've said that war crimes should not be published, their existence must be made known. We must have no illusions, but have no prejudices either. With this full 39 minute video of the Baghdad chopper killings, we have to remember to judge each and every individual by their own deeds, and not to judge a whole by a single portion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&feature=player_embedded