|
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the entirety of the Wikileaks exposure. Nor does deserving to know the truth mean the exact documents and raw words should be revealed. Sunlight may be a great disinfectant but it is also a great prevaricator.
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Sure, but this access is to a large degree a result of Congresses insistence following 9/11 that government agencies allow information to flow more freely between them. Unintended consequences are a bitch.
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
I don't know. Why's the anger directed at Uncle Bob for announcing at Christmas dinner that Sue is cheating on her husband and not at Aunt Sally for telling Uncle Bob?
That said, I've seen a lot of hostility directed at the government for such a leak being possible.
I'm curious why more anger isn't being directed at the person believed to have leaked it all to him (how many here can name that person)?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Always a valid question, I just don't see its particular relevance to this situation as this leak does not include anything "top secret" and therefore the meat of our intelligence gathering remains unrevealed.
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Certainly a valid question, but this is just another form of "this isn't bad because there are other things that are worse."
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
It would say a lot. But frankly I'll wait and see if anything like that actually happens beyond political bluster before I worry about it too much.
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Frankly, this question doesn't make any sense. But, yes, I suppose it could be about that. But as a rhetorical statement it has no real content.
Personally I think the big contributor to all of the outrage this time around is nothing so grandiose. It is simply that many more people with connections to the political tools of government are embarrassed this time around for having been caught in the act of being undiplomatically honest in supposedly private communications. The previous, much more damaging, leaks were mostly embarrassing to members of the military, who don't have that access to scream bloody murder.
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Yes, of course. Is it Paul's contention that every document released falls into the latter category?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
No, I don't think this country has ever really believed that. Subgroups have, but which group tends to shift around based on whether they agree with the government or not. That said, we've always thought it patriotic for people in OTHER countries to stand up when their government is wrong.
My question 10 to Ron Paul would be:
If this release is so patriotic (though applying that word to Assange is as stupid as Palin calling him un-American), and since Paul had access to many of these documents, plus many that are much more secret and informative, what is the source of his moral and patriotic failure in not releasing them himself?
|