Among many major events currently taking up the minds and Internet pages of people interested in American politics two things stand up high: Edward Snowden's leak on NSA and trial of Bradley Manning.
By no means would I try to claim credit to a simple instrument: looking at and analyzing political events through a prism of history. Let me take a crack at this. What would they call these things done by Snowden and Manning in every society in the recent or not so recent past? Let's start with Manning. He is an Army private. By definition this means he gave the oath and has mandatory obligation (both of these voluntarily as he was not drafted but enlisted on his own) to protect his country, to obey orders of his superiors and to keep secrets he was trusted with. He failed in each & every one of these quite obvious and rather common duties - and I mean common for every society and every army in history of civilization. Now some people may disagree with me on the first one - as a good citizen Manning was trying, they argue, to make his country better by eliminating some "unethical" military practices, or, as he put it, to display "the true cost of war". Think about that for a second. Could any military on earth afford allowing it's soldiers to reflect on his or hers lawful orders - as no one ordered Manning anything unlawful - he was just an analyst charged with data processing. Could any military allow publishing (long live the Internet!) tons of secret data and making it known to everyone, including individuals, feverishly daydreaming about inventing more ways to destroy your country? Could anyone provide ammunition to his enemies? Well, to some Hollywood types like John Cusack and political activists and word jugglers like Glenn Greenwald the answer would be "yes, they could & they should". Thank God I would not have to serve in the same squad with good actor or clever publicist, otherwise they may decide that the "fire!" order of our sergeant provides them with an opportunity to open fire at me! O yes - because these guys "don't know" the thinking of our enemy but do know & don't like my thinking! Fortunately, we would not have to serve. I am already out of age while John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald are out of mind to be serving their country. They would rather join the traitor, as for everyone in his right consciousness - no pun intended - in every country, in every century and yes, even in the century of Internet opening your army secrets by a soldier to anyone (and I am not even saying "everyone") is called a "high treason". Does not matter if he or she agrees with them. Does not matter if they correspond to his or her ethics. Manning took oath and he directly violated it no matter which angle you take to look at that. Is it not obvious?
But let me play the other hand for a second and ask - what if the secrets Manning came across or the orders he received were unlawful, in his opinion? He was not at the gun fighting battlefield and he did not have to follow his sergeant and his friends - that is, if he has any in his unit - in the attack? For everyone with a common sense and everyone who has a slightest idea about how any regular army works it's very obvious again. Report it up the chain of command. Report it to the higher officer. Do not put it on display for the entire world. You are a soldier not a middle school sophomore. You don't discuss what you see on the computer screen with your girlfriends, you don't bitch about it, you don't cry out like a pinched pussycat. And if you don't agree with what you see - report it. Serve your term and resign. Reflect on what you've seen AFTER you resign and then - maybe - take actions. And keep in mind what side you are on. You want to make America better? Do it from inside; don't get in the same club with people who want to destroy it. This goes to John Cusack, Glenn Greenwald and their pals.
The Snowden case is similar, although he probably did not give an oath, just signed some paperwork. Even as a consultant, he was in the Intelligence business. And for God's sake, Intelligence ALWAYS takes in as much info as it could and uses all possible methods to get it. So what's the big surprise? We live in the age when terrorists are trying to destroy our way of life. Should we, as Americans, be made privy to all ways and means of our counter-terrorism services? Don't make me laugh!
So what are the reasons John Cusack, Glenn Greenwald and rest of their crowd are so vocal about the two cases? They'll tell you :"freedom of information". They'll argue the public at large - including, unfortunately, direct enemies of America - has the right to know everything what their government is doing. And that's including operational secrets which were always part of military & intelligence operations & diplomatic services. They use a term like a "spying regime". They would even bother the soul of Benjamin Franklin and put out his quote on display: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety". Maybe thees intellectuals would try explain to us what any quote could prove? Here is another one from the same good old Ben: "Any fool can criticize, condemn & complain - and most fools do".
Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen. These guys don't know a thing about what a spying regime or a government excessive use of power is. And I know it because I used to live in the former Soviet Union. Under a real spying or oppressive regime John & Glenn would already enjoy rotting in jail.
Now don't get me wrong. I am all for our Constitution. And I am a very strong supporter of the first & the second (yes, very much so) amendments. I vote in my sleep for a freedom of expression. I don't need my government spying on me. But I do recognize & want all this work of our government: the military, the counter-terrorism agencies & the diplomatic services. Sure enough I want them at full capacity and at the greatest effectiveness they could achieve. And if preemptive counter-terrorism fighting requires listening to my phone & checking my emails then - without too much happiness over this - I do agree to it.
Some people say we the Americans had to be notified of that. And I say: don't be a fool and realize this: in the age of high technology everything you said, wrote, texted or downloaded could be stored someplace. Of course, we should strongly demand prevention of a misuse of this data. We don't want it to be used for the purposes other then national security. And we should make sure that the first amendment is in place. But make no mistake - the freedom of speech is about our right to criticize the government not about bubbling out it's state secrets.
And here we are coming to the definition of where the people uniting themselves with Manning & Snowden belong politically, because knowing that will enable us to understand how we should perceive their claims and their rhetoric. They seem to strongly oppose both republican arguments & democratic government. And this is fine as these two parties don't represent the entire political spectrum. Mr. Cusack, Mr. Greenwald and the likes call themselves liberals. And this is true, because they will always stick with an underdog, associate themselves with a criminal rather then a victim, get very vocal trying to advocate unrestricted freedom for all, including people who could not handle freedom. They will discourage hard work and demand more benefits for everyone - at the expense of other people. They will quite fiercely fight for a freedom of press. And that, in their book, includes publishing our state secret data: things like operational procedures, covert operations plans, surveillance detail of terrorists and other criminals etc. But this is just a part of the truth. In reality they are anarcho-liberals. Let's recall what the anarchists are. Check up the Webster. These are the people who want to abolish the government or to make it inefficient and then destroy it without a purpose of establishing any other system. Sounds crazy to you? That's because it is crazy. Unfortunately, and again history proved it many times over, voluntary cooperation of people based on common sense, or fairness, or even a set of laws is called utopia, and never existed in reality. The laws need to be enforced. And the reasonable freedom, which all of us, including Mr. Cusack & Mr.Greenwald, enjoy in this country like in very few other places on earth, needs to be protected.
And that is what I call the acid test for anarcho-liberalism. Each time you see in the media vocal demands for unrestricted freedom for anyone & everyone & the right of the "public" to know the government's operational data without any regard for the consequences to our freedom, our society & lives of our servicemen & women, you would know what it is about. It's a liberal call for anarchy. And it's worth to notice - although I am sure most of you already figured this out - anarcho-liberalism, the unhealthy child of historically & politically short-sighted parents, is contradictory by nature, since no liberal movement can function if a government would not provide a safe environment for it & allow mechanisms for it's functionality.
