
Wikileaks. To be honest, I had no idea what it was until I was assigned to research the topic in my writing class and I can guarantee most of my generation would have no clue what Wikileaks is so I’m going to fill you in. I’ve done my fair share of research and I have concluded that this man really is the ultimate super villain. Julian Assange granted people the opportunity to anonymously post information about our government and their policies. How can someone consciously post classified media to the public without any signs of remorse? I completely understand that, as Americans, we all have the right to publish anything we want but there is a clear distinction between publishing for the betterment of the people and publishing for malicious intent. Assange truly stepped outside the bounds of the First Amendment by releasing government secrets at the expense of our safety in the U.S.
I guess this is where ethics comes into play. Is he ethically right to post this information for the entire world to view at their own discretion? Is it morally correct to defame the country that fought so hard for your freedom?
Assange has no moral compass. He knew that these actions would cause the most uproar in many years, yet he knowingly allowed it to happen. He is the catalyst to the current downfall of our government system. Nothing is perfect in society and he chose to shine a light on our weakness. I understand that some may say, under the law, he is completely protected by the First Amendment but how can you ever justify a law that allows someone to endanger U.S lives.
Thankfully, Assange was arrested December of 2010, four years after the founding of Wikileaks. He was originally detained on two accounts of molestation in Sweden and they are continuing to look into that case today. I admit, what the government is doing to keep him detained is wrong but we cannot let someone with that much power have the freedom to do what they want with the information. Hopefully, Congress can pick up the pieces and put together a good case and finally make for a stronger prosecution.

I think the most well known leak onto Wikileaks was of the July 12, 2007 gunshot footage in Afghanistan. This clip showed American soldiers shooting at possible terrorists from an air-to-ground attack in Baghdad. There were three different airstrikes from these helicopters and each one of them had a valid reason for the attack. The first air-to-ground attack was on ten men and two of the men were suspected of carrying deadly weapons. An AK47 and an RPG-7. The second was on a man in a suspicious van and the final attack was on a building with possible terrorists inside so they released three missiles onto the building.
Personally, I feel like the team did no wrong in firing at the people. They were suspected of concealing an armed weapon and it seems like common sense. Why in the world would someone even be in the position to be accused of having a weapon, I recommend staying inside. And in no way is that safe for the other citizens to be in that kind of environment. Ok, that may be considered profiling but, come on, what wrong does that do? We have statistical evidence of previous terrorists and their composure, if we profile we ultimately eliminate any risk. It is unfortunate that other citizens were in the crossfire but this is war. If we compare the statistics of World War I and the war we are in now, there are nowhere near as many deaths and we haven’t even got close to getting there.
It is not in the best interest of the U.S population to know this kind of information anyways. America enjoys looking at the world through rose colored glasses so we have no business knowing what the government must do to keep us safe. Over the past hundred years our government has been involved in secret, controversial missions in order to maintain safety in the United States, so why know now? By releasing these tactics, we are only jeopardizing our own future and severing our only form or “surprise attack” or “scare tactics” that we have. Assange deliberately exposed our approach to national security, ultimately revealing our achilles tendon for the world to fire at.
I understand that it shouldn’t be at the expense of other innocent lives but think about it. It’s Darwinism. If you don’t know what Darwinism is I will explain it to you. Basically, it’s survival of the fittest. If you are too weak to survive, you die. That easy. Why would you threaten one of the most powerful countries on the planet and think that we wouldn’t come and fight back. If you attack the U.S. they have the man power to fight longer and harder than any other country. At the end of the day, we are all still a part of the universal food chain and the strong survive.
However, Assange will not survive because our government system is stronger than he will ever be. Yes, I know the law is the law but the people who enforce the law are the interpreters of it. They can skew the meaning of the Amendment all they want and consequently Assange will face some sort of punishment for his actions and especially for threatening the U.S with “insurance”.
Insurance? Assange thought of everything. He methodically planned out his reign over mediated communication. He even had a plan for when he would be taken down by authorities. Assange has generated so much buzz over this so called poison pill. Who in the world even knows what that is? Supposedly it’s some all powerful, uncensored document based on Guantanamo Bay.
Fox News stated that, “Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.”
Assange has already done enough damage to the U.S reputation, what more could he possibly do? All he can do at the moment is continuously threaten authorities by saying that no matter what, he will release these encrypted files and cause a possible risk for future partners. He also has a doomsday file, which he and his supporters are creating if he can no longer keep the website going. Assange keeps reiterating that there will be severe consequences if he is arrested or his website is shut down.
A single man has so much power over government and it shows his true evil nature. He is simply an anti-American that seeks to destroy our nation as a whole. If he leaks this supposed information, nobody knows what further devastation it can have on the U.S reputation and further our ability to have a functioning armed forces.
Julian Assange continues to over step his boundaries and he calculatingly puts American citizens in danger by exposing our secret information. No matter what form of action we take it is based on our own discretion on what is best for the nation as a whole. As long as we remain safe, I see no problem in our approach to national security and I hope that we take the proper measure to prosecute Assange to the fullest degree.
The picture's dead.
ReplyDeleteWhy start with the single word "wikileaks?" Remember that your audience is not necessary your class, but people who would be searching for information about Assange or Wikileaks online, and thus already know something.
You say you're going to fill us in, but thankfully you don't -- you get right to the point and start arguing in paragraph 1.
The font is enormous, childrens-book size. Make smaller, and don't switch from gray to black halfway through.
Well, the US didn't fight for his freedom. He's Australian. Still, those are two good questions, but I don't feel as though you really answer them. They're not rhetorical -- you really need to take a couple of paragraphs for each and prove your point.
Wait, there's been a downfall of our system?
As far as endangering US lives, isn't there exceptions? Such as the military? And what American lives have been endangered?
It's worrysome that you believe that the government is detaining him on false pretenses but still believe that that's the right thing to do. That logic is "the end justifies the means" but that's precisely the logic that Assange uses to justify his releasing of documents (because positive outcomes will result). If you really think it's false pretenses, you have to argue like crazy to defend that idea, and you brush over it too superficially.
Your defense of the gunship is better. You stick on it for an entire paragraph and give reasons why you think the military might have been right. The one danger is the risk of seeming calloused, because this will lose pathos. Try to approach it as obviously sympathetic to the people who were killed, yet while simultaneously admitting that it wasn't the military's fault.
You are right that the government needs to keep some tactics secret. That's a slightly different point than keeping information from the US population. Why not try a qualification and actually define what the US population should have access to and what they shouldn't know?
More dead pictures. :(
But Darwinism as a theory of biology is very different than Darwinism as a social theory. We clearly don't believe in Darwinism as a social theory because we protect women from rape and protect children from molesters. To take Darwinism as a complete social theory is to disregard most of our laws and our morality.
Might is Right is not a comforting thought. You're going to have to really defend that concept if you want to promote it.
You tell us about the poison pill and the doomsday file as if it's obvious that these are evil. It is not. Prove to us what's wrong with them.
Calling him an anti-American without backing up the term is an ad hominem.
"nobody knows what further devastation it can have on the U.S reputation and further our ability to have a functioning armed forces." This is a logical fallacy called "Argument from Ignorance." Logically, you can't try to use a scare tactic to frighten people away from something when you can't even say what that frightening event might be.
Overall:
Bring up far fewer points and spend much more time with each one, proving it from a number of different angles. Right now you're using insinuation, broad sweeping generalizations, theories that are extremely dangerous (Social Darwinism) and speeding right through all of them without pausing for a breath. Be methodical. Make a point and really back it up.