Are You Too Weak to Live With Freedom?

By Briana Madden, Reader Supported News

10 June 13

en years ago, I might've been able to dismiss my father's cracks about the FBI listening in on his phone calls as paranoia or an overly-active imagination. Now, everywhere I look there is glaring evidence of a colossal and ever-growing surveillance state that is quietly stomping all over our freedoms of speech and of privacy.

Alan Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, said this about university and college policies limiting speech: "What universities are saying - to women, to blacks, to Hispanics, to gay and lesbian students - is, 'You are too weak to live with freedom.' ... If someone tells you you are too weak to live with freedom, they have turned you into a child." Well, ladies and gentlemen, the United States government has turned you into a child.

Among the very first handful of ideas the founders of the United States sought to protect was freedom of speech. So important was this inherent human right to the creators of our country that they wasted no time making sure it was codified into law. Today, our lawmakers twist and turn this basic freedom and bend it to their various corporate-poisoned wills so much that it is close to unrecognizable. Today, we are denied the information necessary to hold those in power accountable. Today, we have become too weak to live with freedom.

The "white paper" published by NBC earlier this year revealed not only a disgusting truth about the policies of the Obama administration but also a stark revelation about the resolve of the American people. Despite countless hollow promises of transparency regarding the "War on Terror" made by President Obama during his first term and again during his State of the Union address in February, a classified Justice Department document leaked to reporter Michael Isikoff illustrates just how little transparency we have achieved. The "white paper" asserts Obama's right to play judge, jury and executioner in cases of American citizens suspected as terrorists.

As terrifying as this information is, it is only one piece of the extensive puzzle that is the U.S. government's disregard for the Constitution. Despite lawsuits filed by both The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union requesting the release of classified legal opinions on the targeted killings - information only recently issued to Congress - the American people are being denied the opportunity to react to the actions of their government. Even the judge who issued the denial was skeptical about the lawfulness of the White House's actions. The worst part: no one cares. We are not rioting in the streets. We are not bombarding the Justice Department with lawsuits. We are not putting up a fight. We have consented to this secrecy.

We can see quite clearly through Bradley Manning's experiences what happens to those who actively withhold their consent for government secrecy. After three years of more than rough treatment at the hands of his accuser, Manning's court-martial is happening under a nearly impenetrable veil of secrecy, a reality reported on by RSN's own Scott Galindez, Bill Simpich and Kay Rudin upon their attempts to gain access to the trial. This, of course, raises the question of the government's ethical footing in this case. As Juan Cole spells out here, the charges facing Manning carry with them the stench of hypocrisy:

"The US Government has been gleefully getting access to your private correspondence and that gave the Government Class an inherent superiority over ordinary Americans. Manning announced that turnabout is fair play, and we should be able to see their correspondence, too, especially given the war crimes in Iraq. That's why they're trying to execute him."

It appears the truth will not set you free in dealing with the Obama administration, and the war on whistleblowers may see yet another casualty. Edward Snowden revealed his identity yesterday as the man responsible for leaking proof of the NSA's massive domestic surveillance program, and he is prepared to accept the consequences. In an interview conducted by Glenn Greenwald, Snowden said his sole motivation was to inform the public of the truth and acknowledged the possible actions the U.S. could take against him. He appeared calm and at peace with his future, saying "I am not afraid, because this is the choice I've made."

To say the world needs more brave souls like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden would be a gross simplification of the problem. The world would indeed benefit from more of those with access to the facts stepping up and taking great personal risk to bring important information into the public eye. However, we shouldn't need to depend on whistleblowers and leaks. We need to withdraw our consent for government secrecy and be strong enough to not only live with, but demand, our freedom.

Briana Madden earned her bachelor's degree in journalism from Illinois State University and is an Editor at Reader Supported News. She can be reached by email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.