Reservations In Hell
One can imagine a Wall Street Journal editorial from July 5, 1776:
A group of treasonists, self-styled “patriots,” have declared their independence from the British crown. Claiming rights that no people have ever before claimed of a sovereign, these treasonists implausibly argue that they have the right to replace a government they do not like, clearly implying that they will resort to violence to do so. In a collective flight of fancy and self-aggrandizement, they argue that the sovereign is subordinate to the people, and to their supposed “inalienable” rights. Reciting a long list of King George’s purported “offenses” (From where we sit, perfectly legitimate exercises of Royal prerogative. Many of these pretend issues concern taxation...curious indeed, since so many of the “revolutionaries” are well-heeled.) they appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world” to justify their rebellion, and risibly propose to govern themselves. We appeal to the King to crush this groundless insurrection forthwith.
Manning is looking at a thirty-five year prison term and Snowden faces life in exile to avoid a similar fate. After uncovering government lies, not surprisingly, they did not trust the government. The Journal editors have argued that they should have employed other means to press their concerns, but how does one go about changing government programs and practices that the government either lied about or did not admit existed, whose details are still classified information, and whose oversight is solely by the government? Manning and Snowden have risked much for the people’s right to know what their government is doing. One may question Manning’s and Snowden’s methods, but they have disclosed the truth, and the Journal’s editors may eventually regret their pejoratives and aspersions. Their emollient assurances―amounting to: trust the government―are ones they have rejected many times in other contexts. If the government turns the key on its turnkey police state, the editors will have neither the credibility nor the freedom to change their position and join the fight they should be leading now.
A group of treasonists, self-styled “patriots,” have declared their independence from the British crown. Claiming rights that no people have ever before claimed of a sovereign, these treasonists implausibly argue that they have the right to replace a government they do not like, clearly implying that they will resort to violence to do so. In a collective flight of fancy and self-aggrandizement, they argue that the sovereign is subordinate to the people, and to their supposed “inalienable” rights. Reciting a long list of King George’s purported “offenses” (From where we sit, perfectly legitimate exercises of Royal prerogative. Many of these pretend issues concern taxation...curious indeed, since so many of the “revolutionaries” are well-heeled.) they appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world” to justify their rebellion, and risibly propose to govern themselves. We appeal to the King to crush this groundless insurrection forthwith.
Manning is looking at a thirty-five year prison term and Snowden faces life in exile to avoid a similar fate. After uncovering government lies, not surprisingly, they did not trust the government. The Journal editors have argued that they should have employed other means to press their concerns, but how does one go about changing government programs and practices that the government either lied about or did not admit existed, whose details are still classified information, and whose oversight is solely by the government? Manning and Snowden have risked much for the people’s right to know what their government is doing. One may question Manning’s and Snowden’s methods, but they have disclosed the truth, and the Journal’s editors may eventually regret their pejoratives and aspersions. Their emollient assurances―amounting to: trust the government―are ones they have rejected many times in other contexts. If the government turns the key on its turnkey police state, the editors will have neither the credibility nor the freedom to change their position and join the fight they should be leading now.
All Comments
- 3Posted by khalling 12 years, 6 months agowell written, straight. hear, hear| Permalink
