Responsibilites of Liberty Not Embraced by 'Liberal' Sensibilties

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Dec 9, 2010 at 11:55

It cannot be expected that someone who has not truly enjoyed the 'freedom' of liberties as can be found in America, and only America specifically, would be able to engage in a discussion that purports to provide the expression of ideas in an environment that seeks to curtail those expressions. That is the conundrum facing America in the issue of the wikileak dilemma. Nobody out side of America 'gets' America.

The solution of dealing with Assange is not found in the more sanguineous ideas promoted by certain Americans who feel a betrayal of sorts has been perpetrated against America and allied interests (were Assange an American, trial for treason used to be the course of action-not the case for him here, though others are at such a risk). Instead, the community that is at risk of exposure is always at risk of exposure; and history is littered with the remains of treachery and other assaults on the attempts of 'free' societies wanting to conduct the business of life without interference of jealous neighbors.

What is compromised here is not just 'secrets of state,' but of a sub-societal domain in which international state business that appears unable to be conducted in the light of day functions out of sight (well, they try, anyway), hoping by design not to get exposed, yet seemingly unprepared when they are. While there are reasons to conduct sensitive state business out of the limelight, there are also some types of state business that have questionable motives and outcomes that seem always to be embarrassing. There needs to be some serious discernment to make sure the proprietary aspects of freedom are protected, but not to exploit less than scrupulous methods to assure them. It is not a cost that freedom can endure for very long. It is that same exposure that extremist Islam is counting on to promote their covert activities.

Now in your assertion of a 'liberal and free' West, the phrase is an oxymoron. A liberal society cannot last as a free society, something you and others have already pointed out in your assertions that the West is flawed in pursuit of such things. On the other hand, if properly conducted under the auspices of a functioning responsible government such as that formulated and sought after by the original founding agents of the American Constitution, 'liberty and freedom' are the concepts to be pursued; for the liberties are constrained by observance of PROTECTING those freedoms, and not betraying them for the sake of 'liberal' ideas.

Now from this perspective, Turkey and Iran are not only likely partners in the adventures that lay before them, but they are destined for their collusion to become a worldwide influence on Middle East in the not too far distant future. If details are desired, read the Hebrew Holy Bible. In any event, they are pair to watch, whether Marxist-leftist or Islamist in persuasion. Israel remains the target.

In the final analysis, does the exposure perpetrated by Assange have extreme consequences? To be sure, but then so did the release of atomic secrets to the Soviet Union sixty years ago. But what is at stake today will have more compelling influences on the resulting reactions of those left vulnerable by the betrayal. How any will respond to diffuse or to otherwise handle to fallout remains to be seen. But in the ultimate review, whether Assange is brought to answer for his 'liberality' or is somehow exonerated by failure to properly prosecute him for his indiscretions, neither will have any real means to keep this from happening again as long as there are people that are eager to praise such activity in an affront to the realities of real liberty and freedom.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".