Need to Know?

            This week we took a look at two very different scandals; the sadistic torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison and massive release of classified materials by WikiLeaks.  The conundrum being, how do you weigh the right of American citizens to know about highly controversial subject matter versus the interest of national security. 

             If you've read any of my posts before, you'll know that I'm not one to shy away from voicing my opinion, enjoying satire and irony, or stirring the proverbial pot.  However, this seemingly irreconcilable dichotomy has me stumped.  I can honestly say that I see both sides of the issues.  And I can assure you, for an outspoken Progressive, this is a pleasant surprise! Sarcasm is fun too!

             So with Abu Ghraib, we learned of the atrocities that were committed in our names during the Iraq War; a war that never should have begun and was a continuation of our ill-conceived Middle East policies.  Certainly we deserved the right to know what happened in that prison, but at what cost?  By releasing the photos depicting Iraqi men in shameful situations, did we exponentially increase the number of future jihadists, hell-bent on bringing down the "great satan?"   Or was it a necessary exposure to the truth that we must bear at any cost so that we are prompted into demanding a  revision of our combat engagement policies and hopefully regain our integrity on the international diplomatic stage?

             The scandal involving WikiLeaks is somewhat similar but has a bit more of a focus on journalism.  Like the Abu Ghraib scandal, information pertaining to war atrocities committed by our service members was released by WikiLeaks.  With both scandals, the American public needed to learn the truth.  But again, this truth may come at the same cost.  Has the safety of our allies and sources been compromised by the releasing of this information?  Have we further inflamed the hatred for America that many in the Middle East already feel for us? 

             So the question is where do we draw the line?  Where do we say, "At this point, releasing any more information will serve no further good and only cause harm."  Or is that even a statement that we should be willing to make.  As compelling and fascinating as this situation is, and as much as it deserves an answer, I sadly have none.