Julian Assange is right in his actions for many reasons, but more specifically because Wikileaks creates a more transparent government for the United States. A transparent government for our country is very beneficial for both the people in charge and the governed. It should be more transparent in some aspects, while keeping other confidential information private. It's hard to distingush between the fine line of whats appropriate to be publically known and what isn't, but WikiLeaks does a pretty good job at showing only what is needed.
Government transparency is beneficial specifically for our government because it weakens corruption from within. It allows the governed to know what’s going on since essentially we are the ones affected by the choices they are making. Since the United States of America is a democracy, and democracy by definition is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system, we have every right to know what’s going on. So in a "more perfect union" the people should be informed of the doings by the government in their country.
As Americans we are obligated to pay taxes whether in the form of income, property, or sales. If we are expected to pay taxes, we should know where our hard earned money is going specifically. We should be able to see how its split up and what money goes where.
Another thing that should be more transparent is our military. Even if what they are doing is gruesome and upsetting to some, the people who are interested should be able to know what is going on. We deserve to know the real reasons why we’re at war, the real reason for young people in our nation to go overseas and die. There was a lot of hype about Assange’s leak of Collateral Murder and a lot of angry mothers of U.S. soldiers weren’t too thrilled with how the video portrayed them. Even though it didn’t make our ethics look too high, it did happen and it’s the truth so we have the right to know that things like that are really going on in our military.
The media tries to show what is happening in our wars, but more often than not these broadcasts are bias toward a certain view. What is needed is an unbiased truth, that is objective and is sole purpose is to spread the truth, which is provided by WikiLeaks. We deserve to know what’s happening to our troops overseas, not just what public media shows. Julian Assange and a small group of activists are providing the information that the rest of the media combined isn't capable of providing. If you aren’t on board with knowing what’s really going on, you can always just continue to look the other way.
Government transparency is beneficial specifically for our government because it weakens corruption from within. It allows the governed to know what’s going on since essentially we are the ones affected by the choices they are making. Since the United States of America is a democracy, and democracy by definition is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system, we have every right to know what’s going on. So in a "more perfect union" the people should be informed of the doings by the government in their country.
As Americans we are obligated to pay taxes whether in the form of income, property, or sales. If we are expected to pay taxes, we should know where our hard earned money is going specifically. We should be able to see how its split up and what money goes where.
Another thing that should be more transparent is our military. Even if what they are doing is gruesome and upsetting to some, the people who are interested should be able to know what is going on. We deserve to know the real reasons why we’re at war, the real reason for young people in our nation to go overseas and die. There was a lot of hype about Assange’s leak of Collateral Murder and a lot of angry mothers of U.S. soldiers weren’t too thrilled with how the video portrayed them. Even though it didn’t make our ethics look too high, it did happen and it’s the truth so we have the right to know that things like that are really going on in our military.
The media tries to show what is happening in our wars, but more often than not these broadcasts are bias toward a certain view. What is needed is an unbiased truth, that is objective and is sole purpose is to spread the truth, which is provided by WikiLeaks. We deserve to know what’s happening to our troops overseas, not just what public media shows. Julian Assange and a small group of activists are providing the information that the rest of the media combined isn't capable of providing. If you aren’t on board with knowing what’s really going on, you can always just continue to look the other way.
Although some things in government should be transparent, not everything is safe to be publically known. If military bases weren’t confidential, other countries with motives to hurt our national security would have the upper hand in knowing where they are. Their plans of action also shouldn’t be publically known before hand because that would weaken them. The idea that all universal military actions should be transparent in hopes that it will establish a more peaceful world is idealistic, but foolish. It’s nice to think that in the long run it could help ease the tension between countries, but just because their actions would be public doesn’t mean they’d be less controversial and problematic.
Another thing that shouldn’t be transparent is the personal information of government officials, from the president to the mayor. It isn’t the business of the people they oversee. Their actions in their line of duty should be known, but their home and family life shouldn’t be what’s making headlines. For example the scandal with the past President Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky shouldn’t be in the public eye. That’s his personal business and doesn’t affect us or his job.
Although the government should be more transparent, not everything the government does should be shared with the entire world. Some things would be more beneficial if they were not known by the people. Government transparency should be restricted to only what makes the governed more knowledgeable about important things going on without putting them in danger. A certain balance should be made about what is open to the public and what isn’t.
Some people may say that government transparency is bad and that we should trust in who we’ve voted for. This is true but if they aren’t doing anything wrong in the first place then government transparency should not be a negative thing to them anyways. Unfortunately we have a government where corruption has taken place since the beginning. It would be much harder to do corrupt acts if the people were aware of all that was going on. For example if President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal didn’t make headlines, he could have been elected again and the people would have never known the corrupt ways he ensured that to happen. The view that our government is perfect the way it is and that ignorance is bliss is beyond foolish.
On the other hand, having everything transparent would be highly dangerous for our government and the citizens. People might say that WikiLeaks is endangering us and even have the audacity to call Julian Assange a terrorist. However, he does keep some anonymity by withholding names of both the people submitting information and the people it is about. WikiLeaks offers a good amount of government transparency.
The short term effects of Wikileaks may put everyone on edge but in the long run it is well worth the negatives. We can’t think about how it is affecting us just now but how it will continue to effect governments throughout the years to come if it continues to exist. Even after Julian Assange is long gone, government transparency will continue to be an issue people will press and try to receive. If it’s not him, someone else will take the lead and try to get the information out there. Whistleblowers, journalists, and media outlists will always be collaborating to show you everything that’s going on behind the scenes.
The people who are behind such corruption are dodging the bullet by placing the blame on Julian Assange and the people working with him to get such information out. Private First Class Bradley E. Manning is being charged with 'aiding the enemy' because he leaked private documents to Wikileaks.
“It’s beyond ironic that leaked U.S. State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in dictatorships across the Middle East and North Africa, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.” — Jeff Paterson
We can’t be mad at the people who are merely shining the light on the corrupt actions of our government, but we should be upset with the actual people who are performing them. If Assange and his group of activisits should receive any type of attention, it should be positive because he's helping us gain more government transparency which will later result in a stronger more ethical democracy.
Not the most provocative title. It's rather basic. How can you spruce it up and make it clever?
ReplyDeleteGood initial paragraph. You advocate transparency and say Wikileaks makes good judgment calls.
The next four paragraphs slip into a kind of 5 Paragraph mode where you're advocating for transparency. Development is good, as you're sticking with the topic for a while, but it turns into a essay about the benefits of transparency and loses the cues back to wikileaks and assange. You need more examples from wikileaks and assange to make your points concrete. Right now there's just the helicopter one.
Paragraph 6 (not everything is safe to be publically known) is a good qualification. This is a solidly developed paragraph. maybe a quote or other expert advice would prop it up even more?
Next paragraph is another exception.
"Although the government should be more transparent, not everything the government does should be shared with the entire world. Some things would be more beneficial if they were not known by the people. Government transparency should be restricted to only what makes the governed more knowledgeable about important things going on without putting them in danger. A certain balance should be made about what is open to the public and what isn’t." Without examples, the distinction between this paragraph and the previous two isn't clear. I think you're saying you need to restrict information to protect the public, but this really needs an example.
I love your graphics.
CA: "Some people may say . . ."
How would wikileaks step over the line and offer too much transparency? Perhaps if we knew what that looked like we would have a better idea why they're hitting the right mark, not over or under.
I would have liked it to end on thinking about the future. You bring up the future just before the end, but don't really project ideas or offer anything substantial.
overall:
Your strength is organization and support. Excellent methodical movement through the ideas. Also, great job using rhetorical techniques (CA, qualification, exception, etc). But sometimes the paragraph clusters started to get too listy, and sometimes the ideas were as cogent as they could be (they could have been more forceful). Still, overall, a nice job.