While I don't disagree with your sentiment, in fairness my article never mentioned Assange even in passing, so be equally wary of reading articles with too many preconceptions ;-)

Hi Jim,

I find a bit of irony in your argument. On the one hand you wonder what the limits are for what Wikileaks might publish (nuclear codes, etc), but of course they have never done such a thing, and given that they have redacted and withheld parts of documents in the past demonstrate they do not intend to do such a thing. So I think everyone agrees there are limits to transparency (including Assange). In fact, we know that Assange contacted the US State Department prior to publishing the embassy wires to see if they wanted anything redacted because of his concern that lives might be put at risk. The State Department declined to do so.

So here's my question: what if you discovered that your tax dollars were being used to kill innocent civilians, including children? What if the politicians you voted for were covering this up? Wouldn't this cross a different line? Shouldn't the citizens know that we are funding some of the most reprehensible acts conceivable? Whether or not you agree with the reasoning behind the actions is irrelevant. What's important is that you are allowed to make that judgement. We apply this same reasoning to "truth in advertising". You can't make an intelligent decision when what you know is based on deceit. Taking those decisions away from you is, in fact, depriving you of your rights. What good is a vote if your decision is no better than a random choice?

The difference between the questions you ask and the questions I ask is that yours are purely hypothetical and, to date, have no basis in reality. My "questions", on the other hand, are merely facts restated with question marks on the end. The reason we know these to be facts is because Wikileaks provided the proof.

At the end of the day, democracy without knowledge isn't a democracy at all. That's why freedom of the press is the First Amendment. Not the 5th or the 21st. The First Amendement. You can argue that Wikileaks is not "the press", but I think I'd argue that it's the only press in the world. The rest of them appear to be little better than the propaganda arm of their respective nations.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Oh, and on the topic of Amazon, PayPal, et al:

No, I did not boycott Amazon, and my boycott of PayPal and eBay (essentially the same organization) is over.

The reason I did not boycott Amazon is because they chose to not provide service, something I feel they have the right to do. Also, regardless of which side of this debate you are on, it's reasonable to believe that, as a U.S. company, they were putting themselves at risk of government action.

PayPal, on the other hand, didn't simply terminate service, they withheld tens of thousands of dollars. Once they relented to public pressure and released those funds, my boycott ended.

Overall I would not boycott a company or organisation simply because their views do not coincide with mine (well, unless they were really at odds, like I would boycott a company run by Nazis).

I know my little blog post conveyed none of this information so I can understand why you might assume this was a knee-jerk reaction with no thought behind it, but hopefully you can see that this wasn't the case at all.

I closed my accounts because otherwise there is no way that eBay and PayPal would know they were being boycotted. By closing my account (and providing some information about such) my "vote" was made clear. I still haven't opened a new account with either provider, but it's simply because I haven't needed to. You can consider that "backpedaling" if you like, but I'm not sure why I would continue to boycott them once they responded to public pressure by returning the money. You boycott to achieve an end. Once the end is achieved, there's little point in continuing the boycott.

Anyway, that's the lesser issue at hand. The bigger issue I have with your position is that you, like many people, seem to not fully appreciate what we have enjoyed here in the U.S. for two centuries: democracy. You only perceive threats from the outside, when the greatest threat facing us today is our own government (fueled by the complacency and fear of the populace). Terrorists cannot take away our rights or freedom as a people, and yet that is exactly what is happening as a result of 9/11. We've given our government carte blanche to save us from the terrorist threat. Fear has made us pathetic.

You ask "who made [wikileaks] the arbiter of should be public", but I wonder why you think there should be an arbiter at all. Firstly, it is not up to a foreign press to keep our secrets for us. Secrets are to be kept by those who have them. Secondly, even if they were U.S. nationals, the press in a free society is responsible for making the illegal and immoral actions of its government known to the public. If not, then what is their purpose? To parrot what the White House feeds them? To keep us up-to-date on which celebrity is going into rehab?

Fear has driven us to become that which we fear: we have become the terrorists. We kidnap, torture, and kill. We deny due process, which is a cornerstone of our free society. America is more than some buildings or even thousands of innocent lives. America represents something bigger than that, but we are letting our fear destroy it from within.

I remember being deeply offended when George Bush got on national TV and stated "it's hard to have civil liberties when you're dead". The country I choose to believe in has a different motto: "give me liberty or give me death". I have a wife and two little girls, and I will assure you that if the choice is between them being killed by a terrorist bomb or living in an Orwellian police state, I would wish for the former any day of the week.

Sorry, but I will not surrender my morals or my country out of fear. If an 18 year old soldier can give his life for our country, then so can I. We either believe in our founding principles and are willing to die for them, whether here or on foreign soil, or they simply aren't worth fighting for at all.

"A well-armed populace"? Let's ignore the fact that the pea-shooters the public has are next to worthless against military-grade equipment and get down to the real meat here: you could arm everyone in the country with 30mm cannons and it would still leave them completely powerless if they are ignorant of the government's motives and actions. They could not unite, they could not resist. In fact, like you, they'd probably find themselves victims of government propaganda efforts and end up turning their weapons on their neighbors.

Besides, armed takeover is almost certainly the least likely method for a police state to take effect. It happens by turning the populace against itself. One way is by labeling dangerous (to the state) individuals and groups as "terrorists". If you don't know who to trust, you trust no one. If you trust no one, you cannot unite.

Since you stress the importance of travel, here's an example of how things have changed since 9/11: I know a woman who, during college over a decade ago, joined an animal rights group and did some canvassing for them. A couple of years ago her mother in Florida got sick so she tried to fly from Oregon to see her. Oops. Turns out she's on the "no-fly" list because animal-rights groups are considered potential "terrorist organizations" (and no, the group wasn't PETA). So we are labeling unconvicted American citizens as "terrorists". That's a good start on the way to a police state. Make the political opposition into enemies of the state. The irony here is that she didn't even know she was the opposition. So if the government has been tracking the activities of teenage college students so it can label a soccer mom a "terrorist" ten years later... would that make you concerned about a police state?

I'm still trying to figure out how you cannot see the hypocricy of your position. On the one hand you want to be free to exercise your constitutional rights and on the other you oppose those who want to exercise theirs. You make some odd claims about other people's rights ending "at your front door", but I've yet to see anything that's happened in your city, state, or country, let alone anywhere near your door. Apparently while you feel other people's rights end at your door, you also feel that your rights extend across oceans and into other the lives of citizens of foreign countries. You want protection based on the destruction of others. Frankly, I've had a difficult time remaining civil with you after your very first comment stating you hope Assange ends up in Guantanamo. I wouldn't wish that on anybody and frankly I think everyone who's worked there or allowed it continue should be put on trial. Seriously, it's disgusting and I only hope you were just venting some frustration.

I wanted to address your point about how my daily life has been affected since 9/11. This is a tough point and so I wanted to take some time to gather my thoughts on this.

I think it's difficult to measure the real cost of our current "safety" simply because "rights" are an intangible, things that can only be measured at the point of use. For example, due process is something few people understand or value simply because most people never have to exercise this right. However, if you were to be wrongly arrested, you would find it to be the single most valuable right ever granted. You mention you own a shotgun. I'm sure you would be outraged if you were told that right were being curtailed. On the other hand, most people don't own guns and so would be neutral or even support having that right taken away or significantly curtailed. It is important that you defend their right to due process and it's important that they defend your right to own a gun.

I imagine that Bill Gates has a billion dollars in the bank. If I were to steal 200M of that money, how would that affect his daily life? Probably not much, but somehow I think he'd still be upset that I had taken what is rightfully his. Why? He gives much more than that to charity, so it's not about the tangible, daily affect of the loss, it's about his right to choose how to disperse that money.

You may not realize you've lost your rights until you need them, but by that time it is already too late. That is why it is important to protect the rights of everyone, regardless of whether or not we agree with how they are using them.

We already know that in its efforts to gather intelligence and remove threats the government has been invading our privacy (including warrant-less wiretaps and illegal surveillance). Your rights are my rights and vice-versa. If one person's rights are being trampled, then all of our rights are being trampled.

Last comment, since I doubt you are reading this anyway. On the topic of our forefathers and their violations of their own lofty standards: yes, history confirms that they failed to live up to their own constitutional goals. That doesn't invalidate the goals themselves, nor does it excuse our own failures. I doubt there's a person alive who's lived up to the Christian ideal, and yet I still believe there are real Christians (although they are few and far between). We cannot bring ideals down to our level, else they cease to be ideals.

The fact that we fail to achieve an ideal, or that an ideal is even unachievable , doesn't mean we are excused from trying for it. I know our government will fail. Does that mean I will make excuses for them when they do? Not a bit. In fact, because we have a shared ideal, my responsibility to hold them accountable is much greater.

The thing about America that is the most disappointing is that we have the ability to do the right thing, but we usually choose not to.