The local, national, and international media craze has surrounded the recent release of thousands of cables that link the public to the clandestine conversations of foreign and domestic diplomats. Though the now popular WikiLeaks has already crossed the line in the eyes of many governments, never has its content produced so much controversy and hit so close to home.
Some of the leaks are too enigmatic to appreciate their relevance, and others seem to only hit as hard as a sprung rumor. But the amount of press that it garnered in the past week highlights the importance and the volatility of this newly public information.
Governments, including the United States, that condemn the release of clandestine cables also lose credibility and trust with each utterance of dissent. What they have to hide makes the information that much more tantalizing, as their anger and anxiety heavily seasons the sensitive food for thought.
We think that each time a government tells its citizens not to worry, they should be scared out of their skin; and when a government is backed into a corner with its secrets on the table, we should listen more carefully. Our government should never think that we won't ask questions and seek truth at whatever cost to political reputation.
But many of the releases question the difference between classified information and dirty secrets.
Too many of the cables suggest that clandestine communication lines are full, not of useful information, but of catty gossip and smear.
But if the few cables with the power to prompt diplomatic fallout reach the public, then it should be a wake-up call to politicians to simply stop talking smack. The simple solution is that politicians should watch their mouths; like everyone else, they are subject to the information that is made public, and if they said something that would have hurt their reputation, well, they should not have said it.
WikiLeaks, in a sense, is just a more ballsy news medium, one that is unaccommodating to sentimentality or guilty conscience. The organization is a shining reminder that everyone is subject to scrutiny, especially public figures who use their positions to keep their shortcomings under wraps, as their positions make it convenient for them to place sensitive banter in a file labeled "classified."
Granted, there are certain things that should not go out to the public. Military tactics should remain obscure. It is also disheartening to the United States to know that Julian Assange, the detested creator and administrator of the website, is not an American citizen and does not pledge allegiance to our good name.
But there are things that our trusted government has to hide from us, and it is only in its own interest to keep us all in the dark. It would show dash and stoicism if it said that it didn't care; now it only adds romance to the juicy gossip.
