Can There Ever Be A Compromise Between Liberty And Security In The Political Sphere?

Wikileaks - the truth will out

Wikileaks became somewhat of a phenomenon in 2010 when vast quantities of classified information was leaked to mainstream media sources and disseminated across the world. Wikileaks, an internet organisation, had worked in collaboration with major global media organisations, The Guardian, The NY Times, Der Spiegel ] being the most prominent of these, to ensure the widest possible promulgation of information that proved gravely embarrassing to the US. In order to assess the legitimacy of the interplay of liberty and security rights it serves justice to give a brief account of what was leaked.

The information eclipse surrounding the war in the Middle East was over so that the public had access to footage known as the 'Collateral murder' video; footage showing Iraqi journalists being killed by an Apache helicopter. The Afghan War Diary and Iraq War Logs also brought to light the extent of civilian casualties and left no other impression than that this was a blood soaked and brutal conflict. Indeed in relation to the treatment of detainees the US was aware of 1300 cases of abuse by US troops, with one case of murder, and yet did nothing about it; indeed in continuing to send prisoners there they had breached international law. The finally expose was that of the release of US state department cables, 'CableGate'. Here it was revealed that dubious tactics had been endorsed by the State Secretary which was tantamount to transforming diplomats into spies, again contrary to international law, and generally the disclosure of diplomatic evaluations of world leaders. It was instructive to learn that the US had been given assurances that the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war would not reveal anything damaging to US interests .

Clearly, then the truth had come out, the whole truth. Assange states that if journalism is good it is controversial by nature and that role of journalism is to take on powerful abusers , to that extent many would fail to disagree. However, although Wikileaks can be seen as an example of triumphant liberty; freedom of expression transcending the restrictions of state control that had previously kept all such information secret, it could also be seen as a dark day for security and protection. Indeed the popular phrase was coined that Wikileaks had 'blood on their hands' after publishing the material. This was because although the mainstream media sources redacted the information to eliminate all that could prove potentially dangerous for citizens still present in the conflict zone, Assange did not. With this in mind the legitimacy of unadulterated liberty can be debated.

Yes, we learned a great deal as regards the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and such is legitimate for it informs the public on the policies which their representatives in government have endorsed, and yes we also learned of the unlawful tactics of the CIA in relation to the UN, again this informs political opinion. On that it is no bad thing to point out the faults of various regimes so that the embarrassment puts pressure on those with egg on their face for change . However, access to the knowledge in unfiltered form does not add anything to the political debate, it merely dilutes it. Indeed Charles Glasser terms Wikileaks as "information pornography". In noting the nexus between secrecy and the desire to know Glasser distinguishes the need to know from "information pornography" and that there needs to be a balance struck between the interests in secrecy and the public need for openness .

The divergence of opinion, therefore, is transparent but in the vein of Glasser and indeed the likes of The Guardian, who endeavoured to temper but not trample the release of the provocative cables, we must return to the possibility of a compromise and whether one indeed can be reached.

Finding a compromise; allusions to political/ethical theory:

Perhaps the man who shouted loudest in the name of liberty was Mill. When Mill defines liberty he defines it as the nature and limits of the power which can legitimately be exercised by society over the individual. In this sense he expounds negative liberty in seeking to have liberty from encroachment. He was fearful of the ascendant class imposing their self-interest and this not necessarily being the interests of society. In connection with this therefore, he stated that the one sole end for which 'mankind warranted in interfering with liberty is self-protection' and if against the will of the individual to prevent harm to others. One would therefore be excused in thinking that Mill envisaged this compromise between restricting liberty for the better interests of society, which could be deemed security. However, he continued that there was a sphere of action where absolute freedom was necessary and that was freedom of opinion. Indeed man could not be free unless this right was absolute and unqualified.

Although liberty of expressing and publishing one's opinion may seem to fall under a different principle in that it seems to belong to conduct that could eventually involve other people, 'being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself. it is practically inseparable from it' . Seemingly, therefore, Mill would advocate Assange in his divulgence of unfiltered cables because it was Assange's opinion such was the right thing to do. 'Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest" . No compromise could be met premised on this theory as state security or even the interests of civilians, though compelling, would not be compelling enough to supersede the prized freedom of expression.

However, Mill's theory needs serious critical reflection. Despite whatever dressage Mill's uses to take freedom of expression outside the remit of collective interests it remains paradoxical to his utilitarian principles. There is simply no way to be an advocate of unadulterated liberty and yet simultaneously recognise countervailing interests for the good of man: these are polar opposites in that most expression is to some extent going to involve other's interests. Accordingly, therefore, Mill's theory cannot be seen an excluding a compromise being possible in reality.

So what about positive liberty in the vein of Kantian self-direction and control? Can this align with the idea of security sometimes curtailing liberty in its pure form? Seemingly so. For Marx to understand why things must be as they are, is to will them to be so . Positive libertarians conceive of a rational consensus directing us to one goal and as Locke states 'rational law is a direction to a man's proper interest' and that since law of this kind is what 'hedges us in only from the bogs and precipices' of life it does not deserve the name confinement. However, if we consider the message that this is propounding you see that 'liberty far from being incompatible with authority, becomes virtually identical with it' .

It is noted that this may be deemed to be the rhetoric of totalitarian states. Indeed, if we consider again the GDR, especially as portrayed in 'The Lives of others', it was considered that the censorship and control was in everyone's best interests. Thus a compromise can never be achieved on this reasoning for quite frankly man will not be led by one, rational consensus; to deny the nuance and nuance of an irrational man is to deny recognition of man himself.

It is discernible, therefore, than these two contrasting forms of liberty cannot by themselves truly allow for compromise in the sense of having a legitimate form of interference in relation to freedom of expression in the name of security. As Berlin stated the 'Liberals plea is clear, their case is just but they do not allow for the variety of basic human needs. Nor yet for the ingenuity with which man can prove to their own satisfaction that the road to one ideal also leads to its contrary'. This is not to say, however, that a compromise is impossible because of course it is; especially when we recognise that we are all capable of some sacrifice, 'that we cannot have everything is a necessary, not a contingent truth'. Negative liberty had the best interpretation in acknowledging a plurality of values; it was merely unfortunate that it refused to allow concession in the realm of freedom of expression.

In now recognising freedom of expression can be subject to appropriate limits it is possible to find a compromise between security and liberty and indeed, as alluded to previously, they are one and the same.

...[end of extract]