The Last Meta Post

I would like Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos to grade my "The Push for Transparency" post.

It's crazy to see how much has changed and progressed from my first posts to my last posts. At the beginning of the year, I was just getting used to the whole blogging thing, and now I feel like almost a professional.

I've noticed that this last quarter I've talked more about issues we've discussed in class, like lists, places, and cycles. Before, I would usually take an idea we discussed in class and find something in the news to relate it to, but this quarter I took ideas we talked about and expanded them further.

I also really enjoyed writing about posts related to my Junior Theme topic. I liked being able to connect something like the "Wait, Tupac's Alive?!" post that discussed hackers who posted a fake "Tupac's still Alive" article to the PBS website to WikiLeaks, which I wrote about a lot in my junior theme.

I think I have also learned how to make my posts more concise and get to my point quicker. At the beginning of the year, I had extremely long posts and I feel that by the end they have shortened appropriately. It was something I worked really hard on, and I had to figure out which information was surplus and took the reader away from what I was trying to say. I also, think I've improved in my empathy for the reader. I almost always give links and try to highlight the quotes in my posts in different colors to make it easier for the reader to see what words are mine and what words are somebody else's.

Overall, I loved the blogging experience. It's awesome to be able to write down how I view a certain situation or what I think about something. I also think it's great that we as classmates can comment on each other's blogs and get in healthy debates about different topics.

To Tell or Not to Tell?

*For some reason, this blog post never posted, I found it in my drafts. It's from May 5th.

There are many arguments whether or not our government needs to be more open or more secretive. The recent releases of classified documents by WikiLeaks has not helped the fight towards more transparency in government one bit. Many believe, especially those in the United State government, that the disclosures of American diplomatic logs to the public have hurt American diplomatic ties. Some say other disclosures have placed innocent lives at risk.

But have these releases really hurt America? Can these documents prevent us from having good relations with other countries?

To me, it seems that these documents have been classified for a completely different reason. I do believe that some of these documents have been classified in order to protect people because I do know they could in danger if their governments know what they have shared with the United States. However, I believe that many of these disclosures are to withhold information from the American people about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to author Micah Sifry, who wrote The Age of Transparency, the government classified this information in order to "prevent the American public from understanding the full impact of of the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

By withholding information, the government tried to maintain support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people had been comparing the situation in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam, feeling that the situation in Afghanistan had no end and that we were getting involved in something that shouldn't have been necessarily our business.

I believe that the government was more concerned about not embarrassing themselves and maintaining public opinion rather than if American diplomatic ties were severed with the WikiLeaks leaks. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said after the leak of the American diplomatic cables that "governments deal with the United States because it is in their interest. Not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets.”

I believe that the government's backlash against WikiLeaks is more about preserving the government's reputation and avoid embarrassment/scandal than about diplomatic relations or protecting people's lives.

Wait, Tupac's Alive?!

On Monday, PBS posted an article that rapper Tupac Shakur was still alive and living in New Zealand. However, it turned out to be a false article, placed on the website by hackers who were angered by coverage of WikiLeaks.

According to the New York Times, security experts call these attacks "reputational" on media companies who publish things that the hackers are not happy with. The companies are apparently vulnerable to these attacks because they "depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard." The hacker can simply take away revenue from a Web site, even by just shutting it down for a few hours. Time equals money.

The attacks were "said to be motivated by a “Frontline” film about WikiLeaks that was broadcast and published online on May 24." The hackers, who are supporters of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, felt that the film had shed both the Web site and Assange in a negative light.

This hasn't been the first attack on a Web site who had been critical of something others didn't agree with. Last December, hackers shut down web sites owned by Gawker Media. Apparently, "Gawker had been critical of hacker groups like the one called Anonymous that had attacked security firms and Web sites of the Egyptian government."

So is this form of protest alright to do so? Is it okay for hackers to illegally hack a web site and shut down their revenue because of something they don't agree with?

I think there's a point when people are going to far and I believe that's what has occurred with these hackings. There's one thing of protesting something when a company commits an awful act or something of that sort. But there's another when they are just expressing their beliefs. The hackers are committing illegal acts, and although some may be funny, I just don't feel like that's the right way to go about it. Perhaps they can make their own web site and condemn what they disagree with, or they can create a protest rally. But I think the hacking has taken things a little too far.

The Push for Transparency

My Junior Theme was about why there has been an increase in the number of classified government documents. However, many of the sources I read were talking about a "push for transparency." Transparency is generally when the government acts openly, communicates, and is held accountable for its actions. In other words, instead of keeping so many secrets and sometimes lying to the public, they choose to open information and create better communication with the people.

For my project I read a great book by Micah L. Sifry titled WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency. In the book, Sifry quotes President Obama in a 2009 speech: "I think the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable" (138). This quote strikes me as odd. While I do believe Obama has done many positive things in the direction towards transparency, like creating a National Declassification Center, in the wake of the recent WikiLeaks scandal, it makes you wonder how much he really is doing to make sure information is flowing freely.

There were many things revealed by WikiLeaks about the United States: some good, some bad, and some even embarrassing. And while many were concerned that the disclosures could harm innocent lives, it has been proven that they were more embarrassing than hazardous. So why all the secrecy? Why not get to that transparent government everyone's been talking about?

I think its difficult for a citizen who does not have access or is in the same shoes as Obama to assess what needs to be secret and what can be shown to the public. Most of don't know how certain information could affect the nation if released, but as technology continues to advance, keeping things secret may be harder than ever. The push for transparency will continue and once we can obtain an open government, we can reap its benefits. Then society can become healthier and stronger, working together with the government to generate new ideas and solve issues.

The Curious Case of Bradley Manning

I have decided that for my junior theme I will be focusing on government secrecy. Part of this obviously includes classified documents and the United States' "war" with WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, was "was arrested...and accused of downloading several hundred thousand diplomatic cables and classified reports...providing them to WikiLeaks" according to the New York Times.

Recently this month, there have been additional charges filed against Manning including "aiding the enemy," and he has been in solitary confinement. There has been a lot of support for Manning with many critiques about how he is being treated in jail.

Top State Department spokesman Philip Crowley stated that Manning's treatment was "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid." In response to these comments, Obama reassured the public in a news conference that the jail conditions of Manning were "appropriate and meeting our basic standards."

But is it fair for Manning to be incarcerated? Should he be considered an enemy to the state?

I don't know if I'm very convinced that he should be jailed. Although I understand he released classified information to the public regarding the American government, should these have been even classified in the first place?

According to CQ Researcher Online, about 90% of classified information does not need to be classified. Furthermore, even Defense Secretary Gates, said that "the leaks were likely to cause the nation minimal long-term damage." So why does Manning need to take the fall for it?

I think it's because the WikiLeaks documents definitely did embarrass the United States government. It has showed that the government has lied to the people. According to CQ Researcher Online, "months after the leaks were published, nearly 100 government intelligence analysts reported to Congress that the disclosures had done little actual damage to US national interests."

The government is making an example out of Manning and WikiLeaks. They do not want their secrets being shared with the world. There are images to uphold and people to please. After all ignorance is bliss, right? But knowledge, knowledge may just set you free.

In the Interest of National Security

It is said that ignorance is bliss, but is it really? Can we not handle the truth? WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, has been all over the news. Recently, the website released approximately 250,000 American diplomatic cables. Here's an article about it from the New York Times.

WikiLeaks has been a large thorn in the side of the American government, and these latest disclosures have proven to be detrimental. The article states that,

"The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk."

These specific cables tell of U.S. relations with other countries, including a "dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel" and the discussions of a unified Korea should the North collapse.

But what's really important about these cables it that they "depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American Consulate."


With the latest Perilous Times presentations in class, the government withholding information from its people tends to reoccur numerous times. But is it right for the government to do this? Should we be kept ignorant?

I don't think so. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that "knowledge is an antidote to fear" and I completely agree with him. When we are living in such fearful times, we need to know what's going on from our government. We shouldn't have to find out information from leaked documents, they should be supplied to us. Many would argue that its safer to keep the people ignorant in the interest of national security. These are perilous times after all. But how can we know who to vote for if we can't even trust the government to supply us with the truth? How can we unite as a country against terrorism if we don't know the gravity of the situation?